Image TileImage TileImage TileImage TileImage TileImage TileImage TileImage TileImage TileImage TileImage TileImage Tile
Image size: 7168x8704 Scale: 35% - PanoJS3
Page overview thumbnail

Article text

SUPREME COURT.
CIVIL SITTINGS.
FRIDAY, OCTOBER 9
6 (Before Mr. Justice Stone.)
- The Court sat at 10.30 a.m.,
Forrest v. Sexton.
This was an action brought by Alexander
Forrest against Walter Benjamin Sexton
4 i to obtain specific performance of an assign-
ment and damage. Mr. S. Burt, Q.C.,
Attorney-General, with Mr. W. F. Sayer
(solicitor, Mr. W. F. Sayer), was for the
plaintiff; and Mr. H. Parker, Q.C., with Mr.
Durston (solicitor, Mr. Durston for the
defendant.
The hearing of the case for the defendant
was continued from the previous day.
1 James Montgomery Speed, solicitor, gave
evidence as to his being present at the interview
between the parties, in December,
. 1895. Witness handed to plaintiff on that
occasion the agreement between Shepherd-
son and defendant, and the plaintiff appeared
to read it. Witness was not present
there as Sexton's solicitor, but had been
told by Sexton that Forrest wanted to see
' him. Witness held the agreement on behalf
of Sexton and Shepherdson. Witness
prepared the agreement between plaintiff
-, and defendant by plaintiff's request, and
sustain the bill to Gill <t Co, who paid it.
Witness did not remember telling the
A plaintiff that Shepherdson's lease would ex
. pire in March, 1896. He did not then look
up at the agreement to see when it would ex
t ;. pire, or whether he had the right
(to renew; but subsequently, after receiving
' - from Shepherdson a notice of his intention
to renew, witness looked into the agree
1 > meat and found he had the right to renew.
; Witness informed Goode, the manager for
Gill &. Co., of Shepherdson claiming the
renewal, and witness told Goode then he
I thought he had made a mistake in saying
it Me right of renewal expired in December.
Witness had made such, a statement to
'Sexton and Stoneman. That was what he
is referred to when he told Goode he had
made a mistake ; he did not refer to any
Qg he had told Forrest.
*> This was the case for the defendant.
After hearing the addresses of counsel,
r] -j His Honour gave his decision. He reNewed
the evidence, the cases cited by
easel, and, with regard to the allegation
that the plaintiff had notice of the lease to
Shepherdson, said it appeared to him it
might well be taken that the plaintiff read
the lease, not with a view to ascertain
when the term expired, because he had
been told by Sexton's agent it would expire
1 in March, but that he was looking for other
provisions, and did not pay attention to the
portion which had reference to the expiration
of the lease. Upon the authority of
the case Caballero v. Henty, cited at the
bar. His Honour held that if there was any
-- thing in the tenancy which affected the
property, the vendor was bound to tell the
' p increases. In this case the vendor told
him he selling this lease with a
right of possession on the 1st of
j I arch, and although the purchaser
afterwards had the lease in his
hand, he was not bound to read it with a
view to find out whether the assertion of
the vendor was correct or not. In this
case it had not been suggested that the
defendant made a statement which he
» v know to be untrue, or wilfully misrepre-
sented the state of the case. He was under
the impression that he could let the purchaser
in on the 1st of March. All the
parties were under that impression, therefore
there was no insinuation of fraud, or
misrepresentation amounting to fraud,
Bjrihv.t the defendant. Still, there was the
fact that he made an innocent statement
inducing, the purchaser to complete the
purchase, which innocent statement was
very material indeed to the purchaser, and
v turned out to be untrue. It was upon
these grounds, His Honour thought, the
plaintiff was entitled to judgment, and he
gave judgment accordingly. His judgment
would be subject to deduction for the
horses and carts and the timber received
from Shepherdson by Sexton's authority.
Judgment was given for £1,740, being
She amount of £2,000 for the promissory
i votes, less £670 for the horses and carts, and
ElfÛ Eor the Biber. Interest from the
date of each bill at 7 per cent, was allowed
the plaintiff, and interest at the same
is on the £270 was awarded the defendant.
The contract was cancelled, and costs were
.- given to the plaintiff.
Grant v. Quigley.
his way Adjourned to the October sittings.
The Court rose.
CRIMINAL SITTINGS:
' f. - TUESDAY, OCTOBER 9.
(Before the Chief Justice and a Jury.)
, 2 The Court sat at 10.15 a.m.
Mr. R. B. Burnside, the Crown Solicitor,
prosecuted.
EitopBBEAxiNa with felonious Intent.
Three men, named James Woods, George
, Dryden, and Noel Richard Evans were
arraigned on a charge of shopbreaking
' with intent to commit a felony, the alleged
offence having occurred at the store of
Messrs. Currie and Co., Fremantle. Accused
pleaded not guilty. Evans was
defended by Mr. Browne, the other two
being unrepresented. It was stated by
the Crown Solicitor that on the night of
the 16th August last a plan arranged
between the prisoners to break into and
rob the premises of Messrs. Currie and Co.,
was being carried into effect when the
police, having obtained information of the
proposed burglary, arrived on the scene in
time to disturb their proceedings.
Levi Taylor, a woodcutter, of Fremantle,
deposed that on August 15 prisoners Woods
and Dryden were in his employ, Evans being
at the time boarding with him. Witness,
, In company with his wife and the three
prisoners, left his home on the evening of
the day in question. ~ Before leaving,
Woods asked witness for the loan of two
bags, those produced being the ones which
witness gave the prisoner. On the way to
Fremantle Dryden told him he had a plan
to rob Currie and Co.'s store, and showed
him some skeleton keys and a sand-bag,
which he remarked was a very useful
thing, and would do its work when required.
He asked witness to get a spring
cart and horse from a certniiifcerson, but
witness told him to go himself. They
overtook another man on the road and
separated company, witness walking with
the prisoner Wood to the Richmond Hotel
After a drink at that place the other party
joined them, and they all went to the
Federal Hotel, where they remained until
10.40 that evening. In the meantime he
'missed Evans, and could not say where he
went to. Witness and his wife then left
the prisoner and returned home, leaving
? Woods and Dryden in the street.
About midnight he heard a knock
at his door, and upon opening it
'was Evans, who almost fell into the
house, being under the influence of liquor,
[a said to witness, " Woods was pinched
in the store.",. At daylight the following
morning Dryden came in and said that
4 Woods had been caught and taken in the
store, and that he (Dryden) had to rush to
get away.
" From the remainder of the evidence it
appeared that the previous witness having
given information to the police, Constables
Harris and Correa went to the premises of
Messrs. Currie and Co., where, they secreted
themselves until the time was opportune
income from their hiding-places and pre
A Tent a robbery being carried out. The
jury brought in a verdict of guilty against
woods and Dryden, and not guilty in the
case of Evans, there being some doubt as
to the implication of the latter in the
attempted burglary. Woods and Dryden
were each sentenced to seven years' penal
servitude.
The Court was then adjourned until
Monday morning.
and
$